The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

If you don't mind, I will make the observation, that people who were so sure, earlier today, that a foetus isn't human, are now reluctant to concede that they would permit abortion in stages of pregnancy when human status of the foetus is definite - not there was ever any logical doubt about the definitiveness of its humanity.

several people have stated that they support abortion being available regardless of circumstance, so now you're blatantly lying!

what is your argument here? one shouldn't support abortion at all if they don't support it up to week 40? by that standard anyone who thinks that abortion is killing a baby should be out protesting the availability of the morning after pill and the 13th amendment

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

There are of course some politicians that have strong feelings on the issue, Brid Smith, ivana Bacik have campaigned for years on a pro choice platform. I'm thinking more of figures of the main political parties (labour aside whose stance has always been clear). One could argue that the views of these people have evolved, but it's more likely they've been happy to be pushed around but the prevailing political wind in their area.

some people would say that politicians evolving their thinking would be a good thing. apparently not.

how about you answer the question i asked?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Tipperary animal lover

more like horse shi*e than horse burger me thinks

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

Would you place any limits as to when an abortion can be carried out?

Yes, depending on the context.

horseburger wrote: »

What do you reckon of abortion? Are you ok with it in general?

No. I would prefer they never happened at all. I just do not think making it illegal, or exporting the issue to the UK, is a valid viable or useful way to attain that goal.

horseburger wrote: »

If the foetus is healthy, with no medical conditions, and will grow and develop healthily up to birth and beyond birth, would you allow for abortions in that case?

Yes, within certain time frames.

You really do like vague questions that can only get vague answers don't you? You really need to add context and specifics to your questions if you want anything but the vaguest of answers.

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

If that is what you believe, you should vote to repeal the 8th, and subsequently lobby your local politicians in respect of restrictive abortion legislation.

Perhaps Blanch.

There is knock on off placing the responsibility of legislation on public representatives though, in the sense that they very often vote with regard to their political career and not the issue being voted on.

For example Regina Doherty recently saying, that in 2014 she was ignorant of the issues regarding abortion in Ireland.

But she said that the time that she really believed what she had said.

She pretty much made a dismissive comment saying 'women who don't want to get preggers have contraceptives available to them so they should stop whinging'.

In the Irish Times item from 2014, Mary Minihan wrote:

"Speaking to radio station LMFM, Ms Doherty said she understood why political leaders were reluctant to act and said clear legislation would have to replace article 40.3.3 if it was removed. “I’m not sure that the current situation does satisfy anybody. It certainly doesn’t satisfy the pro-choice people, and that’s not a movement that I would be in sync with,” she said.
“Not everybody lives in the black or the white of pro-life or pro-choice ideologies, because there are lots of situations in the middle of the grey areas that when those situations visit people’s houses then they have to make very difficult decisions.”".

"Contraceptives"

Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies.

“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frepeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

Yes, if there is a risk that the ill health could lead to death.

so, no then is your answer?
life long ill health and/or injury to the mother only count if the woman might die?

horseburger

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed they have. please scroll back a few pages.

horseburger

bubblypop wrote: »

so, no then is your answer?
life long ill health and/or injury to the mother only count if the woman might die?

What's your answer to that scenario?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Perhaps Blanch.

There is knock on off placing the responsibility of legislation on public representatives though, in the sense that they very often vote with regard to their political career and not the issue being voted on.

For example Regina Doherty recently saying, that in 2014 she was ignorant of the issues regarding abortion in Ireland.

But she said that the time that she really believed what she had said.

She pretty much made a dismissive comment saying 'women who don't want to get preggers have contraceptives available to them so they should stop whinging'.

In the Irish Times item from 2014, Mary Minihan wrote:

"Speaking to radio station LMFM, Ms Doherty said she understood why political leaders were reluctant to act and said clear legislation would have to replace article 40.3.3 if it was removed. “I’m not sure that the current situation does satisfy anybody. It certainly doesn’t satisfy the pro-choice people, and that’s not a movement that I would be in sync with,” she said.
“Not everybody lives in the black or the white of pro-life or pro-choice ideologies, because there are lots of situations in the middle of the grey areas that when those situations visit people’s houses then they have to make very difficult decisions.”".

"Contraceptives"

Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies.

“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frepeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

you said yourself earlier that you've only been looking into this the last few months, but it's not ok for someone in the public eye to read on something and perhaps alter their opinion on it?
I've heard plenty of people say they used to consider themselves pro life but after xyz they reevaluated their beliefs and now find them firmly in the pro choice camp

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

What's your answer to that scenario?

well, hows about i asked you first?

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Indeed they have. please scroll back a few pages.

No they haven't, most people agreed it was human, but not a human being. It was you who had trouble with the semantics.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

Enough of the vagueness, either you're pro-life or pro-choice HB, this has gone on far too long and you've been running in circles. Either out yourself or continue with your posting style until eventually the mask will slip and you'll out yourself down the line.

For someone who's apparently on the fence, you've posted nothing but pro-life material and when pushed on reasons to repeal you gave one.

Wrong.

I include items by Donal Lynch, in the Sunday Independent and on TV, who I suggested is making far more persuasive arguments for repeal, than the posters in this thread.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

No they haven't, most people agreed it was human, but not a human being. It was you who had trouble with the semantics.

Is it not the human bit that is important, not that it is human foetus or human being.

It is human at either stage, is it not?

v638sg7k1a92bx

Genuine questions. What is the status quo if the mothers life is in danger during the term of the pregnancy or during childbirth?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not the human bit that is important, not that it is human foetus or human being.

It is human at either stage, is it not?

yes, nobody posited that it wasn't

Timberrrrrrrr

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not the human bit that is important, not that it is human foetus or human being.

It is human at either stage, is it not?

I have a mole on my rear end.....guess what HB.....its not a human being but it IS human DNA.

Do you get it now or do I need to get the crayons out and draw you a picture?

horseburger

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

more like horse shi*e than horse burger me thinks

that was rather humorous but if you are going to use vulgar language try typing the word in such a way to avoid being censored:

for example:

sh-ite

horseburger

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have a mole on my rear end.....guess what HB.....its not a human being but it IS human DNA.

Do you get it now or do I need to get the crayons out and draw you a picture?

That sounds rather splendid, please do.

How big will your mole grow and develop if you don't detach it from your ass?

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Genuine questions. What is the status quo if the mothers life is in danger during the term of the pregnancy or during childbirth?

it is my understanding that if the womans life is in danger then an abortion is allowed. HOWEVER by that point it may be too late to actually do anything that helps the woman. so if a woman is deteriorating the doctors can do nothing but wait until such as a time as her life is at risk.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger, what's your opinion on the 8th amendment and how it impacts women, as opposed to your opinion on abortion?

gctest50

this lad tearing down posters and assaulting the camera guy who was giving him a chance to air his views

Interesting it's a poster without graphic medical pictures

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

Wrong.

I include items by Donal Lynch, in the Sunday Independent and on TV, who I suggested is making far more persuasive arguments for repeal, than the posters in this thread.

Sorry, I've been corrected, you've posted bits from Donal Lynch who says pretty much the same as posters in this thread.

I see you've avoided the question again, are you pro-life or are you on the fence? I'll correct my statement, your posts have a high pro-life content, with very few pro-choice statements, etc, being offered.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

yes, nobody posited that it wasn't

Well then that brings us back round to the fundamental question as to when it is ok for one human person to decide to end the life of another human who hasn't given consent for their life to be ended, and would otherwise continue growth and development.

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

this lad tearing down posters and assaulting the camera guy who was giving him a chance to air his views

should get a fine for littering!!!

NuMarvel

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Genuine questions. What is the status quo if the mothers life is in danger during the term of the pregnancy or during childbirth?

Current legislation says an abortion can be carried out if the following criteria are met:

A - 2* doctors agree that there is a real and substantial risk of loss of life, and
B - That risk can only be averted by an abortion.

*2 doctors for when it's a physical illness, 3 doctors when it's a risk from suicide, 1 doctor when it's an emergency situation.

In practice that means abortions won't carried out after viability, because delivery is another means to avert the risk to life.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

Sorry, I've been corrected, you've posted bits from Donal Lynch who says pretty much the same as posters in this thread.

I see you've avoided the question again, are you pro-life or are you on the fence? I'll correct my statement, your posts have a high pro-life content, with very few pro-choice statements, etc, being offered.

He does and I'd be more inclined to listen to him, because it is him who is stating that repeal campaigners are denying the humanity of what is being aborted.

If you are so sure that humanity isn't being denied by repeal advocates, why isn't he?

SusieBlue

horseburger wrote: »

Well then that brings us back round to the fundamental question as to when it is ok for one human person to decide to end the life of another human who hasn't given consent for their life to be ended, and would otherwise continue growth and development.

Back to this I see. How do you propose we obtain said consent, if the lack of consent is the issue?

Also, what are your thoughts on the fact that women are denied the opportunity to consent (or withhold consent) while pregnant?
Do you think its acceptable for this to happen to living citizens?